On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:42PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote: > @@ -612,7 +604,16 @@ static void init_overlap_sched_group(struct sched_domain > *sd, > > sibling = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sd, i); > > - /* See the comment near build_group_mask(). */ > + /* > + * Asymmetric node setups can result in situations where the > + * domain tree is of unequal depth, make sure to skip domains > + * that already cover the entire range. > + * > + * In that case build_sched_domains() will have terminated the > + * iteration early and our sibling sd spans will be empty. > + * Domains should always include the CPU they're built on, so > + * check that. > + */ > if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sibling))) > continue; >
FWIW, the topology that spawned all that is: 10,20,20,30 20,10,20,20 20,20,10,20 30,20,20,10
